Safe Speed Forums

Should we have regular retesting for all drivers? For some drivers? For drivers over a certain age?

Safe Speed says no. It's a massive undertaking and we already have the safest roads in the World without it. In short we think the costs outweigh the benefits.

Don't forget we can still train and test selected dangerous folk without wasting our effort retesting the broadly competent majority.

What do you think about regular retesting? Think carefully now!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I used to be anti continual testing, but after thinking about it some more I now feel that it could be useful. Part of my reasoning is that most of us take our tests in our teens or early twenties, and then it is assumed that we continue to improve through experience. There's nothing in place at the moment to make sure that this is actually happening, but having to go back every few years could do it.

I'm not thinking so much as simply re-taking the driving test every X number of years, more that you drive around with an examiner for an hour or so and s/he picks up on and corrects any bad habits that you may have slipped into. It should also be looking for signs that overall the driver has learned from experience, and is therefore likely to be better than the day they passed their L test. Attitude could also be looked at - does the driver seem to want to continually improve? Perhaps "assessment" is a better term for all of this than re-test.

Of course, if the examiner sees a really awful standard of driving then possibly they could insist on a full re-test (theory, hazard peception, the works - back to a provisional license in other words). On the other hand, if the examiner found that the driving was of such high standard there was nothing to correct it would be nice if we could get the insurance companies to recognise it too and discount that driver's premium. Most driver's would probably have a few minor faults identified and would just be advised not to rest their left hand on the gear stick, or whatever it is they're doing wrong.

There are plenty of problems and things that would have to be sorted out first, though. Top of the list is financing it. As I said elsewhere, with the amount we contribute in motoring taxes it'd be nice to see some of it coming back to improve driver standards. Perhaps some future government will be concerened enough about driver standards to put some back, but in the meantime fat chance. I haven't got an answer to that one.

The other biggie is if we're going to reward those drivers identified as the safest the insurance companies have to be convinced that their risk for such drivers is reduced. This might be the biggest challenge of all, as safe drivers are the most profitable for insurance companies and they might get a touch nervous about their margins if too many drivers qualified for reduced premiums. Maybe a different carrot is needed, but I really feel that the best motorists should come away from their assessments with something, otherwise they'll just think it was a wasted hour.

Next is who does the assessment. Well, since this is for more experienced drivers regular test examiners might not be the ideal. I'd prefer class 1 traffic plods myself. I can't think of anyone better qualified to identify and correct faults in my driving. Pity we've only got a handful left. Oh well, I suppose they could always cut my roof open and stick PC Gatso in the passenger seat.

I'm sure there's plenty of other obstacles, but overcoming them only requires some creative thinking and backbone in our politicians. Oh damn. That's another reason why it ain't gonna happen, isn't it.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I'm not sure which way to go on this one. A month or so ago I found my way to the DSA Mock theory tests (got 33 & 35 btw).
I then showed it to my partner, and her parents - their reaction was that they thought it would be a good idea to be made to retake a test such as this on a regular basis (e.g. every 5-10 years) to ensure people are up to date on the latest changes (e.g. they has no idea about trams etc. which have been introduced since taking their tests).

I also see so many examples of bad driving daily e.g. (to name a few of my pet hates):-
Middle-lane (or outer-lane) hogging on motorways.
No indication.
Pulling out without looking.
Tailgating.

One thing I find scary is that these people must have passed a test at some point.. However the problem with some of the above examples (e.g. Middle-lane hogs) is that some people may never have been told that this is wrong (pass test without ever going on a motorway, then just do your best when you get there).

Therefore while I do think that we should do something, I'm not convinced as to what this should be..

Matt.

I tend to agree with Paul on this one, as I've posted before in another thread. Most people's standard of driving is basically "OK, but maybe some room for improvement" and therefore making everyone do retests would cause a lot of expense and hassle for relatively little benefit.

But more use should be made of retests (or indeed less formal driving assessments) for people found by the courts to be primarily at fault in accidents.

There was a recent case where an elderly Scottish lady received a £200 fine and 6 penalty points for driving at extremely slow speeds on a busy single-carriageway rural A-road.

Under the circumstances, perhaps a lesser penalty but a requirement to take a driving assessment might have been more appropriate.

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Now you all know from my various postings on here which side to the fence I am on!

We have always regarded driving our cars as a privilege rather than a right. My wife and the rest of her family had to prove to their parents that they they were capable and had earned the privilege before financial help was given towards lessons. She had to fully service a rally car against the clock and with running commentary for her Papa before he went out racing in it. She also had to do similar exercise whilst out as passenger with her Papa - explain why he had selected which gear, and where the potential hazards were etc, etc. But then - family of enthusiasts and she had grown up in atmosphere of car rallies and races. Does help!

Would like to see UK L-test brought up to German standard which does include compulsory drive on motorway or similar type road if miles away for the A/bahn, and night drive in pre-test lessons.

Their written test does include car mechanics (to be introduced into UK theory next year - so I understand from purchasing latest "Pass Your Test" DVD for the kids! Basic understanding of a car's engine does at least give some insight into the "feel" of the car. So perhaps going little bit further in right direction - but as beermatt points out - lack of motorway training at L- stage and "Pass Plus" being only optional at the moment is not good enough!

Germany, as I am led to understand from our petrolheads over there, is currently looking at driving test again, as like here - licenced until age 70. They are thinking of going the French way and increasing probationer period and introducing assessment and medicals for 65 year olds. They also claim problems with those pre-reunification "Ossies"

At the moment - we have "Speed Awareness" courses of differing standards. Gatsobait has mentioned the Thames Valley one - which has two levels - "Hazard Perception" game for the 31-35mph-ers and one more like the current Lancs one for the severe speedsters. Except that the Lancs one targets 31-35mph only - but after numerous protests appear to be climbing down a bit and will offer course to 37mph if there are places left! So take that as meaning 33-34mph-ers will get stern letter they are talking about instead???????

Now I have found out a little more about this course from people in area who have had their invites! They spend 3 hours on hazard perception where SHOCK! the people giving the talk and advice - talk about ...da da daaaaaah!...

C O A S T!!!!!!!!! And how applying C O A S T saves lives! Speeding, it seems, when asked - only featured as

"Do you know how many people get hurt at 35mph?"

They do not use BiBs at all - but ADI - Driving Instructors and RoSPA folks.


So! Perhaps we could encourage assessments via ADIs as refresher courses every 5 years, with grades as incentive. Higher the grade - better the insurance discount as carrot.

And most certainly - make everyone - whether they drive a car or not - take a test on the Highway Code and Road signs!

Now - Golf Course awaits!

I'd like to see compulsory retests for all drivers. I would like to see a proper advanced driving system that builds on the IAM/RoSPA schemes. This would probably require the DSA to take charge.

I think we need to send out the message that education doesn't stop the day that you pass your driving test.

In principle a very good idea, BUT am very, very anti retesting if it to be done to the current standard, which, IMHO is not much of a standard at all.

In the construction industry, there used to be a lot of untrained persons operating heavy plant, the self taught and those on 'grandfather rights' a hideous situation reflected in the accident stats, it was decided to bring in regular testing, very little thought as the the original standard being retested (woefully inadequate) so no real improvement in safety.

Contractors went for the cheapest (and usually the easiest to pass) courses/tests, those that taught and tested to a half decent standard costed more so declined.

We now have the CITB and MCG, whilst not perfect they have agreed, nationally recognised standards that do give a degree of confidence that if someone has a ticket to operate plant they can actually do it safely.

Bring in a half decent test and yes, I would be one hundred per cent behind retesting, as it stands now it would be a repeat of the construction - a cash cow for those doing the retests with little actual improvement in safety.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

That's the big stumbling block, isn't it. Like with the current proposals for ID cards a lot of people aren't keen because it's something else they have to pay for. If it's an additional motoring expense then almost no-one will want it, even if they do design it so that it works well. It will still be seen as a cash cow.
There's something like a £40bn gap between what motorists contribute in taxes and what gets spent on roads. If they can find a way of paying for re-testing out of that then it'd probably get more support.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

For car drivers, the route seems to be something like:

L test
Pass Plus
IAM
RoSPA

For simplicity's sake, let's just assume we grade them as follows:

L test - Class 1
Pass Plus - Class 2
IAM - Class 3
RoSPA - Class 4

The higer the class, the great the BHP/tonne ration can be, the higher the discount that insurance companies would give (or the lower rate of Insurance Premium Tax is paid)

Add in additional categories so that there is room for Ride Drive / High Performance Course and the ongoing benefits/opportunities for improving ones driving standards are endless.

Retesting should not be about trying to tackle minor infringements i.e. not changing up to 3rd when approaching a traffic light (not even sure if this is standard practice anymore - it was in my day) but about identifying potentially serious safety related problems.

Nice idea, but the safest drivers are the most profitable to insure - all premium and no payout. Since the insurance companies aren't going to be too keen to lose margin, they may need some <ahem> encouragement to support it.
Mrs Gatsobait used to use a company that gave a discount for an IAM pass, but there premiums were so bloody high in the first place that she was still paying more then I was (non IAM driver with a faster car). Needless to say she's long since switched companies and saved several hundred quid.
The point is that insurance companies are not really rewarding safe drivers beyond the no claims discount system. Even that has limits as suffering vandalism or car theft doesn't affect your ability to drive safely, but will damage your discount. Seems to me that we need either legislation to force insurers to reward advanced motorists or find something else. The best might be a combination of things, lots of little carrots rather than a single large one. I like the idea of performance restrictions forcing drivers to improve if they want to have that dream car. Perhaps cheaper VED as well.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

If we could put some meaningful form of accessible advanced driver training in place then the insurance thing would kind of fall into place by itself.

Better training = better drivers = fewer claims. If this effect were reasonably substantial (which it ought to be if the training is good quality) then insurance companies would be able to split the difference and offer cheaper insurance whilst increasing their profits.

At the end of the day, the cost of car accidents is ultimately "dead money", even to an insurance company. Perhaps especially to an insurance company. Surely if they could charge (say) £50 per annum to all drivers but have no claims then they'd all be making a mint!

Using the anology above, suppose we had a slidnig scale for Insurance Premium Tax:


Class 1 - 50%
Class 2 - 40%
Class 3 - 30%
Class 4 - 20%

and so on....

Don't forget that IPT is added after the occupation/insurance group/mileage calculation has been made.

It may be that fuel duty could be reduced as a consequence of people paying higher IPT. ANPR (properly implemented, not the ramshackle system that is currently being used) would catch those people who were uninsured.

We have to move from a system of high taxation and poor road safety teachings to one of excellent road safety principles with moderate to high taxation.

Agreed that would be the most reasonable thing for insurers to do, I'm just not convinced they'll do it. Maybe I'm just unusually cynical about insurers putting customers interests before profits and shareholder dividends after a disputed claim on my household insurance. They said they covered fences and mine blew over. When I claimed they said cover didn't extend to fences blowing down. So what the hell were they covering? Did they think someone would steal a concreted in fence? Perhaps I might lose it on holiday? Destructive tidal wave from the goldfish pond? No, sorry mate, my experience with insurers has always been negative, so I just don't believe they'd cheerfully reduce margins on the most profitable section of their business. Perhaps if one company took the first step and began outcompeting the others for new business, then maybe the rest of the industry would follow suit. Apart from that I'm not convinced things will change.
Neat. Increases the cost of motoring slightly for drivers who don't bother/aren't good enough to get advanced qualification, but reduces it for those who can/do. One question, though. If you were putting such a system in place how would it affect 2 car households with one advacned driver and one bog-standard? In other words, does my ordinary license reduce Mrs Gatsobait's advanced driver reduction as I'm a named driver for her car? Or do I get a better discount for my car by having her as a named driver? Or is it both and they more or less balance each other out?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I suppose it depends who drives your car most of the time. You or Mrs Gatsobait? The premium SHOULD be based on who is the best/worst risk.

One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned (forgive me if i missed it) but what happens to people like myself who has a car/motorbike licence?

What about those who have the works, i.e. car, bike, lgv, pcv or whatever other class... would we have to pay to re-take everyone of them?

If not, which one would we have to take?

Personally, i think the current driving test should be overhauled and change it to a more "bike" style where you are restricted to certain "BHP" or the likes. Introduce motorway driving, altough difficult to work locally as our local motorway is about 100 miles away...

I've thought of re-testing a few times and i can't see it making much differance as i think a lot of people will simply alter there driving enough so they pass... although having watched programs like "worlds worst... driver" and the like, maybe i'm totally wrong *grins*

Presumably, we would be focussing any new training and/or re-testing on "attitude" rather than specific driving skills, on the basis that attitude is the key to reducing accidents.

As such, "attitude" training is equally effective regardless of the type of vehicle involved, so therefore it could have the same effect on your licence regardless of type.

I really favour the idea of having a staged licence, and maybe even combine it with penalty points to give a net "driver quality" rating, which is then used to determine what vehicle performance groups you are permitted to drive.

Here's an idea to kick things off: Lets say we have a system whereby your licence can have a "score" of 0-100 "points". In order to drive provisionally you need 10 points, which is what you get when you apply for a licence as a complete "newbie". If you have 30 points you can drive a basic performance car (say Ins groups 1-5). Similarly 45 points = groups 6-10, 60 points = 11-15 and 75 points = 16-20.

Ok, when you take your driving test you are scored out of a possible 100 points, but that is on an exhaustive test taking a couple of hours and involving driving on A roads, motorways etc. You could also opt to just take the existing test but that would only carry a max of 50 points.

Therefore if you want to buy a performance car then you first have to elect to do the "advanced" version of the test and get a score of at least 75.

Now if you get any motoring convictions, they would be negative marks on your licence, so you score would drop until they expired. But of course you can "mix and match" and opt to re-take your test at any time to improve your score. So if a new driver on 35 points gets 10 for speeding he has an immediate incentive to take training and retake his test to immediately recover his licence.

I think this covers most of the angles, and whilst it encourages frequent retesting it doesn't actually make it mandatory. It would be perfectly possible to take the current test, score (say) 45, and drive carefully for ever more. It's only those who either demonstrate their poor driving attitudes or skills by getting prosecuted, or who want to drive exotic cars that have a requirement for further tests. I think that's pretty fair.

Of course it naturally follows that motoring convictions ought to be safety related instead of chasing motorists for arbitrary speed limit infringements, but then that is true already!

JT

I like the approach a great deal. A staged system where people can enter at the most basic level and progress if they so wish. I do think we need to compulsory retest people, though.

If we had a decent enforcement strategy this system would cope with this end of the spectrum quite well. The "lower quality" drivers (not very PC I know, but you get my drift) would tend to have pretty low scores to start with, so would only be one strike away from going back to provisional. Similarly, someone fitting the "petrolhead" profile would typically have a high starting score through being very skilled and keen, but if they drove aggressively they'd tend to pick up too many points and end up in the same boat.

Meanwhile, drivers who displayed the combination of high skill and good attitude would have a massive buffer of points and very little risk of losing their licence.

Which is how it should be, I think!

And one spin-off would be that this "points score" would be a great way of measuring driver risk for insurance premiums.

JT's idea is pure genius, though like cra I'm also in favour of some sort of regular re-test or assessment. The two could work quite well together. Certainly I'd agree that's there's not much point in forcing the best drivers to be re-tested, but until now I couldn't think of a way to test the worst without dragging everyone else into it.

But what if we took JT's staged license and made your score determine how often you need to be reassessed. Say under 45 points gets you reassessed every 5 years, under 65 points every 10 years and over 65 points your driving is considered good enough that re-assessment isn't necessary. Since JT proposed a much tougher L-test with scoring rather than a simple pass/fail the best drivers could score highly enough on the test to avoid future assessments. Those who miss the cut would probably want to take extra training just to push their score up to the next level, grade, whatever. If the system was designed carefully enough the only people who had to do re-tests would be the least skilled.

Assessing attitude should be a very important part of it. The basic question to be asked by the re-test, assessment, call it what you will, is has the driver allowed their attitude and skills to deteriorate or have they improved with experience? Then a good assessment could add to your score while a bad one would knock points off, say a maximum of 10 or 15 either way. A bad driver who's already got a low score might get taken off the road right away, and a good driver who hasn't yet taken advanced training would gain some points and might be able to move up a category as a result. It would probably encourage people to do some voluntary training to give themselves a points cushion, just in case they had a bad day when they were reassessed.

The only difficulty I can see in JT's concept is selling it to the speed kills brigade. I have little doubt that some of them would say that a high score gives a driver a license to drive dangerously. Of course, that misses the point that in order to get a high score in the first place you'd have to have the right attitude toward driving and show that you have the skills to match. Perhaps penalty points should be a little bit more for the highest scoring drivers, as arguably they should know better.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Gatsobait

Do you anticipate the current penalty points system being scrapped and merged into this new tiered-license points based approach?

Another advantage would be those offences like middle lane hogging which I think the police cannot easily deal with (I think it is because it requires a summons - could be wrong though) could be given a point value of, say, -5. Other offences could also be brought into the equation e.g. no VED, uninsured, etc.. - So the 'points' on a persons license would be THE place where all motoring offences are administered (as opposed to the current system of points/court etc..) - Drivers could also buy back points by surrendering their licenses for period of time.

As already stated, I am in favour of zero tolerance of all motoring offences (except speeding) - Having a fairly simple system might also take some of the heat out of the system.

I don't think advanced drivers should ever be exempt from ongoing restests. The very reason I did the RoSPA test was that having passed the IAM test, I wanted to ensure that my skill levels remains high. First re-test is due next year!